Evidence of meeting #24 for Canadian Heritage in the 43rd Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was chair.
A recording is available from Parliament.
1:25 p.m.
Conservative
Alain Rayes Conservative Richmond—Arthabaska, QC
Could someone confirm the information that Ms. Bessette just provided? I think that's the reason for the confusion with regard to these two amendments.
Basically, our party supports both amendments. However, since we need to study one amendment before we can study the other, we want to make the right choice. We don't want to eliminate the Bloc Québécois amendment if the communities aren't listed in Ms. Bessette's amendment.
Could an expert check the information provided by Ms. Bessette?
1:25 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Scott Simms
Madame Bessette, did you want to address that again? I see your hand is still up.
1:25 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Scott Simms
We're going to call for a vote on G-1.
(Amendment agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])
As a consequence, of course, BQ-2 has now not been moved.
We now go to PV-3.
Mr. Manly.
1:25 p.m.
Green
Paul Manly Green Nanaimo—Ladysmith, BC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
In combination with PV-5—that the broadcasting system shall be effectively owned and controlled by Canadians—this amendment would clarify that foreign undertakings can still provide broadcasting programming to Canadians and are still subject to the act despite the system being Canadian controlled.
In PV-5, the bill removes the section of the act that asserts that the Canadian broadcasting system shall be effectively owned and controlled by Canadians. This amendment would maintain what's currently in the act. Ownership and control are essential for Canada's national identity and cultural sovereignty. Many organizations are concerned about the removal of ownership and control by Canadians, including the Coalition for the Diversity of Cultural Expression, the Société des auteurs de radio, télévision et cinéma, Canadian Senior Artists' Resource Network and the Forum for Research and Policy in Communications.
The amendment of PV-5 should be paired with PV-3, which would clarify that foreign undertakings can still participate in a system that is owned and controlled by Canadians.
Thank you.
1:25 p.m.
Liberal
Julie Dabrusin Liberal Toronto—Danforth, ON
Thank you.
This is one of those places where the concern is that what might sound good might actually lead to a more complicated and unintended consequence. Looking at this amendment, the way it works could actually suggest that other classes of broadcasting undertakings do not include foreign broadcasting undertakings. It could lead the readers—someone who's looking at it—to conclude that the act does not apply to foreign BDUs, and therefore they could operate in Canada without a licence.
It could end up creating that opening. Goodness, I practised law for many years, so I know this. My job was all about trying to find those openings. To have that unintended consequence, someone could say that in fact the bill has a smaller scope than it is intended to.
1:25 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Scott Simms
Seeing no other hands raised, I will call for the vote.
Shall PV-3 carry?
1:25 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Scott Simms
Hearing no, Madam Clerk, we will now go to a recorded vote.
(Amendment negatived: nays 6; yeas 5 [See Minutes of Proceedings])
We will move on to NDP-1.
Before we start that debate, if NDP-1 is adopted, then BQ-3 cannot be moved, due to a line conflict. Let me explain that line conflict for just a moment. The two amendments are regarding the same line. If NDP-1 is adopted, the line in the original bill changes, and therefore the BQ amendment would not pertain to the original.
I hope that was discernible. That's basically what the line conflict is. If NDP-1 is adopted, BQ-3 cannot be moved due to a line conflict. They are both going after the same thing.
Ms. McPherson.
1:30 p.m.
NDP
Heather McPherson NDP Edmonton Strathcona, AB
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
On the amendment that we've put forward, the objective, of course, is to modify the definition of control of programming to ensure that companies meet their obligations regarding discoverability. We all heard about how important that was during the testimony. Certainly, through the many meetings I had with the people who were interested in this, this became something that was vitally important.
The CRTC must not only be able to ask but also be able to verify whether software is designed to be compliant. It also needs access to the relevant data to study user interactions with interfaces and to evaluate the effectiveness of the recommendations. Therefore, the amendment includes algorithms in order to take account of technological developments, programming control and the requirement of discoverability.
1:30 p.m.
Liberal
Anthony Housefather Liberal Mount Royal, QC
Thanks.
I appreciate the amendment, because I understand the issue of algorithms to be incredibly important, although I know we'll be dealing with that in upcoming legislation.
I have a question for Ms. McPherson or the department officials, whoever can answer it better. Is it the intent that online undertakings that transmit user-generated programs now be responsible for all of the contents under the requirements of paragraph 3(1)(h) of the act, given this amendment? That would seem to be really onerous. I'm wondering if you could clarify if that's the intention.
1:30 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Scott Simms
Mr. Housefather, may I ask which one you prefer—the department officials or Ms. McPherson?
1:30 p.m.
Liberal
Anthony Housefather Liberal Mount Royal, QC
Perhaps the department officials can clarify and then give Heather a chance to also explain. I'm interested in hearing from both of them as to the intent.
1:30 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Scott Simms
Thank you very much.
I'm looking for the show of a physical hand, not a virtual one, from the department.
Mr. Ripley.
1:30 p.m.
Director General, Broadcasting, Copyright and Creative Marketplace, Department of Canadian Heritage
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Indeed, the definition of “programming control” was modified by, as I understand it, what Ms. McPherson is proposing. What it could mean is that certain online undertakings.... Depending on the scope of what that means at the end of the day, particularly in cases where social media platforms may be included under the act, modifying the definition of “programming control” in this way would make them responsible for any content that their recommender algorithms could recommend, even in instances where they have not necessarily curated it.
The definition commonly understood in broadcasting has come out of the conventional sense, where we know a broadcaster is commissioning a piece of content and choosing to include it on its lineup. If the definition were modified in this way, it would certainly expand the scope of programming control significantly. Depending on where the scope of online undertakings ends up, the implications could be quite significant. You could be asking companies to be responsible for content that their recommender algorithms are recommending or servicing, even in instances where they may not have been involved directly in the commissioning or the creation of that content.
1:35 p.m.
NDP
Heather McPherson NDP Edmonton Strathcona, AB
I don't know that I necessarily agree with that, because my understanding is that with social media there is that exemption that is in place. Also, one other thing that we talked about is the idea of algorithms and curation being separate. I think it's important that we have that, and that we recognize the important role that algorithms play. I don't think it is intended to cover all social media, because that's not what's in this bill.
1:35 p.m.
Bloc
Martin Champoux Bloc Drummond, QC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I want to speak to my colleague, Ms. McPherson.
I don't want to draw attention to the amendment that we're proposing, amendment BQ-3. However, isn't specifying the possible methods involved somewhat limiting? For example, if our wording simply referred to the selection, recommendation and prioritization of programs, without necessarily specifying any methods, this would include all methods used to make the selection.
I certainly expected a great deal of debate about the concept of algorithms. However, I wonder whether we need to include it, since it's implied.
1:35 p.m.
NDP
Heather McPherson NDP Edmonton Strathcona, AB
If we don't name them, the worry is that they are not included—that they are not actually part of what is put forward. I think it is really vital that they be included. That is my understanding: that we need to have some insight into that, because the way modern technology goes and the way modern communications happen, those algorithms are key. I think it's important to name them. I understand what you're saying—that it might be limiting—but I think if we don't name them, there is the potential for them to be excluded.
1:35 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Scott Simms
Thank you.
Seeing no further debate, shall NDP-1 carry?
(Amendment negatived: nays 10; yeas 1)
Now we go on to amendment BQ-3.
Mr. Champoux, you have the floor.
1:35 p.m.
Bloc
Martin Champoux Bloc Drummond, QC
It's similar to Ms. McPherson's amendment, except that it doesn't identify the methods. I think that, by simply stating what we want to define, without necessarily using specific terms, we would provide a clear understanding of the intent.
I'm open to questions, of course.
1:35 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Scott Simms
Are there any comments?
Seeing none, we'll go to a vote.
Ms. Dabrusin, go ahead.
